Page 122. ‘There was certainly a Copper Age ... Ireland.’ Professor Gowland (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxvi, 1906, pp. 26-7) deprecates the use of the expression ‘Copper Age’, remarking that ‘the so-called Copper Age possesses no characteristics which are not common to the Neolithic Age, except the imitations and limited use of stone forms in metal’, &c. The question seems to be purely verbal.

Page 140. ‘It is worthy of remark ... not pure.’ The proportion of lead in Scottish bronze implements appears to have been remarkable; but Professor Gowland (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxvi, 1906, p. 30) observes that lead is ‘found in small quantities in nearly all bronze implements’. See, however, J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 417.

Page 148. ‘All the open ones ... sand.’ Professor Gowland (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxvi, 1906, p. 36) affirms that ‘moulds of sand or loam were undoubtedly of later times [in the Bronze Age], as there are considerable mechanical difficulties in preparing them’.

Page 194, note 3. To the list of counties in which drinking-cups have been found must now be added Kincardineshire (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xl, 1906, pp. 304-6).

Page 205, note 4. To the list of papers on cup- and ring-markings may be added Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xl, 1906, pp. 318-27.

Page 208. ‘Stone circles ... Kincardineshire.’ A circle in Stirlingshire is described in Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xl, 1906, pp. 301-4.

Page 211, note 2. To the list of papers on Scottish stone circles may be added Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xl, 1906, pp. 164-206, 245-54.

Page 221. ‘They told him ... ankle-bones.’ This statement rests upon the reading ?st?a????? in Diodorus Siculus, v, 22, § 2. Professor Ridgeway (Folk-Lore, i, 1890, p. 83, n. 1) suggests that the true reading may be ?st?a?? (saddles).

Page 237. ‘Coral ... later period.’ M. S. Reinach (Rev. arch., 4^e sÉr., vi, 1906, pp. 309-10) argues that the development of enamelling in Gaul was due to the growing dearness of coral, the price of which rose because large quantities were bought for exportation to India after the conquests of Alexander the Great. This view leaves unexplained the continued use of coral in Britain long after it had fallen into disuse in Gaul.

Page 259, note 3. In a recent article on vitrified forts (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xl, 1906, pp. 136-50) Lieut.-Col. A. B. McHardy suggests that some of them may have been built in the time of the Vikings, and argues that the vitrifaction was probably never intentional, because (1) ‘in various forts ... the loose stones below the vitrification (sic) are supported by ordinary masonry, which apparently might have been carried up the whole way had the builders so desired,’ and (2) the greatest amount of vitrifaction is generally found ‘where a strong parapet is least needed’. He also thinks that the forts were used for signalling, and that the vitrifaction was produced by smouldering beacon fires.

Page 288, note 1. Canon Greenwell, in a paper to which I have already referred (p. 676, n. 6), states that in the ‘Danes’ Graves’ ‘by far the larger number [of bodies] were laid on the left side, and ... about one-third had the head pointing to north-east. It does not seem, however,’ he adds, ‘that the dead were laid with the face turned towards the sun.’ He also observes that ‘the presence of charcoal in close proximity to an unburnt body, so universal a feature in the graves of the Bronze Age [on the Yorkshire Wolds] was not noticed except in a few cases, at the Danes’ Graves, and in these it may only have been there accidentally’.

Page 379, note 3. I omitted to mention Professor Karl Pearson’s method of estimating stature. Dr. Beddoe, who has criticized it in Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall, xv, 1902, pp. 163-71, thinks that it ‘probably underestimates the stature of tall men’, and observes that in one case, where the actual height of living men had been ascertained, Professor Pearson’s calculations erred considerably more than his own or M. Manouvrier’s.

Page 408, note 4. See also Biometrika, iii, 1904, pp. 243-4.

Page 490, note 5. Further evidence of tin mining in the Scilly Islands will be found in Memoirs Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Isles of Scilly, 1906, pp. 10, 11.

Pages 504-5. ‘Is he not aware ... distinguished.’ C. MÜller, in his edition of Ptolemy’s Geography (p. 106), argues that Pliny’s Vectis cannot be the Vectis which was the Isle of Wight, because he mentions it among the islands between England and Ireland. But if this argument is sound and Pliny did not blunder, it remains true that there is no evidence in Pliny or any other writer for identifying Ictis with Vectis.

Page 527, note 9. Mr. Spurrell has proved that a slight subsidence has taken place in the London district since the Roman occupation. See also p. 566, supra.

Pages 581-3. ‘There is one passage ... anchorage.’ The argument in this paragraph depends upon the assumption that the ships which were ‘carried back’ (referrentur) in 55 B. C. to the port from which they had started were laid to, and that they could not lie within less than four points and a half of the wind, or, if, with Falconer and James Smith, we allow six points for leeway, within less than two and a half. It may not perhaps be impertinent to explain that when a ship is laid to her head is brought as close to the wind as possible without losing way, under little sail. In these circumstances the helm is often lashed, and the ship then has a tendency to yaw, that is, to fall off the wind and come up again alternately. An experienced seaman with whom I have recently discussed the matter believes, however, that it might have been practicable for the captains of the ships in question to adopt the plan of ‘head reaching’, that is, working to windward under comparatively low sail but still enough to enable the steersmen to keep the ships under control, to luff up to dangerous seas, and to make considerable headway. As he remarked, the difference between lying to, when the helm is not lashed, and ‘head reaching’ is simply one of degree: in ‘head reaching’ the vessel carries a little more sail; and, judging from illustrations of ancient ships, he thinks that Caesar’s would have been able, when ‘head reaching’, to lie within two points of the wind. Allowing five points for leeway, he holds that they could have made good a course within seven points; and he insists that an ancient ship with its sails properly trimmed could have gone as near the wind as a modern lugger!

This, I need hardly say, is rank heresy, and I do not believe that any one who is conversant with the literature of ancient navigation will accept it. Besides, we do not know whether Gallic ships were rigged exactly like those of the Mediterranean. James Smith (The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 1880, pp. 75, 127, 215) may or may not have been right in maintaining that an ancient ship could not make good a course in moderate weather within less than about seven points of the wind; but numerous passages prove that ancient ships, if they could work to windward, could not do so without difficulty. If my heretical friend is right, why were Caesar’s cavalry transports windbound in the ulterior portus, less than eight miles from the port which their captains wished to make, and why were they obliged by contrary winds to put back, even in moderate weather, after they first started from the ulterior portus? M. Jules Vars, indeed (L’art nautique dans l’antiquitÉ, 1887, pp. 181 ff.), apparently doubts whether ancient ships could work to windward at all; but a passage which James Smith quotes from one of Cicero’s letters (Fam., xiv, 5, § 1)—cum sane adversis ventis usi essemus tardeque et incommode navigassemus—and another in Livy, which I am obliged to quote at second hand—hinc atque hinc ad ventos obliqua transferre vela—suggest, if they do not prove, that they could. I hope to discuss the question soon in another place. Meanwhile it is enough to say that if Caesar’s cavalry transports could not work to windward, they could neither ‘head-reach’ nor lie to; and those which were carried back to their port of departure must have fetched it by sailing with the wind nearly abeam. But those which were ‘driven down in great peril to the lower and more westerly part of the island’ (ad inferiorem partem insulae quae est propius solis occasum magno suo cum periculo deicerentur) were evidently scudding; and while the word referrentur (‘were carried back’), which is strongly contrasted with deicerentur, suggests that the others were laid to, Caesar’s words show that they were comparatively in little danger, though, if they had not been brought close to the wind, they would evidently have run as great a risk as the others. A distinguished admiral suggests to me that they did sail with the wind nearly abeam, and disposes of the question of danger by assuming that Caesar exaggerated its force. But, with due deference, I would ask whether, since it was strong enough to drive ashore and wreck ships which were riding at anchor, and since the ships that ran before it were ‘in great peril’, ships sailing with it nearly abeam would not have been in peril equally great. It is universally admitted that ancient ships could sail with the wind abeam: it seems hardly credible that the discovery should not have followed that Gallic ships, which were not shallow, could also make headway within less than eight points of the wind; and I therefore believe that, however rare, from one cause or another, tacking may have been, ships were occasionally laid to in bad weather.

Anyhow, my argument remains unshaken. If the ships which were carried back to the ulterior portus neither lay to nor ‘head-reached’, it is self-evident that they could not have fetched Sangatte, and therefore that the ulterior portus was Ambleteuse: if they sailed with the wind abeam, they could not have fetched any port east of Wissant: if they were laid to, they could not have fetched Sangatte; nor could they have done so even if they ‘head-reached’ unless they possessed a capacity for working to windward with which few modern ships and no ancient ship can be credited. Indeed they could not have done so even then; for it would evidently have been impossible for them to beat across the Channel in a single tide: the flood (see p. 583) would hardly have helped them; and the ebb, prolonged and strengthened by the north-easterly gale, would have carried them far out of their course.

The foregoing remarks apply of course to other passages in which I have mentioned the cavalry transports. By no means could they have returned either from near Hythe or Lympne to Ambleteuse or from near Pevensey to the mouth of the Authie.

Page 680. ‘Therefore, unless ... Bekesbourne.’ Mr. George Barrow of the Geological Survey, whom I have consulted, thinks that there is no reason to suppose that the relative level of water and banks in the Little Stour above Littlebourne was appreciably different in 54 B.C. from what it is now.

Page 698. ‘The claim ... better grounds.’ Mr. F. H. Baring (Eng. Hist. Rev., October, 1907, pp. 726-8) argues that Caesar crossed the Thames by ‘an undoubted ford just above tidewater at Hampton’, which was mentioned by Lord Lumley in 1685. He argues that, owing to the tides, Brentford would only have been available for ‘five or six hours out of twelve’; that ‘this important fact would surely have been mentioned’; and that the stakes which have been found at Brentford are fifteen inches round and therefore too large. I am not sure that he is referring to the stakes described by Mr. Montagu Sharpe, whom he does not mention; but surely the stakes would not have answered their purpose worse for being strong. I do not believe that Caesar would have mentioned the presence of tides at Brentford if they had not affected his passage; but, as we have seen (p. 696), Mr. Spurrell has argued that the tides did not reach Brentford. If there was a ford at Hampton before the days of locks and weirs, there was another, if the evidence of the name Halliford is trustworthy, at or near Coway Stakes. Are we entitled to assume that either existed in the time of Caesar? The reader will have understood that I do not pin my faith to Mr. Sharpe’s theory: I only think that it is less feebly supported than any other.

Page 712, note 2. W. Sternkopf (Hermes, xl, 1905, p. 37) rejects Boot’s emendation, proximis, and conjectures that Cicero wrote proxime, meaning that the letter in question was the most recent of several which had arrived together.